We're part of that ecosystem whether we want to be or not.
As the beneficiaries of free content, it seems like a complete non-issue to just say "no thanks" when alternatives include: no content, or fully paywalled content. If you're just expecting free content that caters to you in every way possible way, I'm curious how this is sustainable for any author, or why authors should be expected to work this way.
> it's actually the best interests of the author that's being looked after, not the users or readers
There are no users/readers if there is no content. There is no content if there are no engaged users/readers. My point is that actively building an audience (good for the author) is actively good for the reader, because it makes continuing to write a viable thing for the author to spend their time on.
If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative, but you're now a double beneficiary: of the author, and of the readers who do return.
> It's as rude as walking up to someone while they're reading a book...
I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the moment you pay for the blog post you'd have more standing to complain about the conditions surrounding its presentation.
And I'm also not saying the state of the ecosystem is good, or that I like it. I'm also not saying that the ecosystem can't or shouldn't change. But I think it's unreasonable to expect writers not to have self interests, while taking a stance that is wholly self interested.
> If you're just expecting free content that caters to you in every way possible way, I'm curious how this is sustainable for any author, or why authors should be expected to work this way.
speaking for myself, i mostly look for content that the author wanted to produce (just by/for himself). not for me or any engagement metrics.
> There is no content if there are no engaged users/readers.
this is plainly false
> If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative
not only is it my prerogative, it's the norm.
> Perhaps the moment you pay for the blog post you'd have more standing to complain about the conditions surrounding its presentation.
thou criticism is still allowed for the unwashed masses, not only because it's popular.
This really depends on the blog. If it's a person who is making their living off of a newsletter, then readers = content.
I'm not saying that there are no blogs without readers, and somewhat awkwardly was trying to make the point that an author taking steps to create an engaged audience may be doing so as a condition of continuing to write. This is obviously not universal. My personal blog has not many readers. I still write. I don't ask them to subscribe.
>> If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative
> not only is it my prerogative, it's the norm.
This quote cuts out the only point of that sentence: even if someone is visiting a blog with the sole purpose of leaving and never returning, there is no standing to be upset when the author providing them with content at no cost simply asks if they'd like to subscribe. This violates basic notions of reciprocity and seems rather...childish, frankly.
This is not to imply that there's any expectation that someone should subscribe. I rarely do.
We're part of that ecosystem whether we want to be or not.
As the beneficiaries of free content, it seems like a complete non-issue to just say "no thanks" when alternatives include: no content, or fully paywalled content. If you're just expecting free content that caters to you in every way possible way, I'm curious how this is sustainable for any author, or why authors should be expected to work this way.
> it's actually the best interests of the author that's being looked after, not the users or readers
There are no users/readers if there is no content. There is no content if there are no engaged users/readers. My point is that actively building an audience (good for the author) is actively good for the reader, because it makes continuing to write a viable thing for the author to spend their time on.
If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative, but you're now a double beneficiary: of the author, and of the readers who do return.
> It's as rude as walking up to someone while they're reading a book...
I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the moment you pay for the blog post you'd have more standing to complain about the conditions surrounding its presentation.
And I'm also not saying the state of the ecosystem is good, or that I like it. I'm also not saying that the ecosystem can't or shouldn't change. But I think it's unreasonable to expect writers not to have self interests, while taking a stance that is wholly self interested.